love

Author Topic: meta  (Read 116371 times)

St. Martin the Bald

  • Lurker
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 11205
Re: meta
« Reply #610 on: April 25, 2011, 12:32:33 AM »
I don't even bother to write reviews most of the time...
Hey, nice marmot!

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36128
  • Marathon Man
Re: meta
« Reply #611 on: April 25, 2011, 12:34:27 AM »
It probably has something to do with the lack of Asuperplusses in star ratings.
My system accounts for that. There's no 4 1/2 stars. 4 Stars is a must see and 5 Stars would be Asuperplus.
I have only given 5 stars to 25 movies.

FroHam X

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17792
  • “By any seeds necessary.”
    • justAtad
Re: meta
« Reply #612 on: April 25, 2011, 12:38:28 AM »
The Meta Conversation

I don't know when or why I switched to Letter Grades when rating movies. I actually don't like letter grades. In college I created perfectly workable guidelines for a 5 Star Rating System and I used that system for 15 years. So why am I stuck on Letter Grades now?
You should use my system of not rating. It's pointless.
It probably has something to do with the lack of Asuperplusses in star ratings.
I don't even bother to write reviews most of the time...

It can be difficult to judge a conversation, especially one found in a thread related to all things meta. This conversation managed to jump out at me because of it's depth, but also it's odd structure, so emblematic of the way conversation unfold on the Filmspotting Forum. One person after another adds something to the stream of consciousness and without proper context it can all come across as a jumbled blur or meaningless blather. And yet, even amidst all the attempts at poignancy, sarcasm and cleverness rest the heart and soul of it all. Four people, talking about nothing, tangentially related to film, but mostly a form of delightful verbal masturbation (and maybe other forms of masturbation nobody is privy to).

B+
"We didn't clean the hamster's cage, the hamster's cage cleaned us!"

Can't get enough FroHam? Read more of my musings at justAtad

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28709
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
Re: meta
« Reply #613 on: April 25, 2011, 12:42:48 AM »
The Meta Conversation

I don't know when or why I switched to Letter Grades when rating movies. I actually don't like letter grades. In college I created perfectly workable guidelines for a 5 Star Rating System and I used that system for 15 years. So why am I stuck on Letter Grades now?
You should use my system of not rating. It's pointless.
It probably has something to do with the lack of Asuperplusses in star ratings.
I don't even bother to write reviews most of the time...

It can be difficult to judge a conversation, especially one found in a thread related to all things meta. This conversation managed to jump out at me because of it's depth, but also it's odd structure, so emblematic of the way conversation unfold on the Filmspotting Forum. One person after another adds something to the stream of consciousness and without proper context it can all come across as a jumbled blur or meaningless blather. And yet, even amidst all the attempts at poignancy, sarcasm and cleverness rest the heart and soul of it all. Four people, talking about nothing, tangentially related to film, but mostly a form of delightful verbal masturbation (and maybe other forms of masturbation nobody is privy to).

B+

As much as it tries to critique the conversation this review just can't help but fall in line with the rest of the talking. It feels like it wants to be pointing out something insightful or poignant about the lack of insightfullness or poignancy in a conversation that is utterly meaningless but instead it fails and becomes the thing which it so violently tries to rebel against. This is what happens when we stare into the void. Nothing.

C-.
Check out my blog of many topics

“I’m not a quitter, Kimmy! I watched Interstellar all the way to the end!”

FroHam X

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17792
  • “By any seeds necessary.”
    • justAtad
Re: meta
« Reply #614 on: April 25, 2011, 12:49:55 AM »
The Meta Conversation

I don't know when or why I switched to Letter Grades when rating movies. I actually don't like letter grades. In college I created perfectly workable guidelines for a 5 Star Rating System and I used that system for 15 years. So why am I stuck on Letter Grades now?
You should use my system of not rating. It's pointless.
It probably has something to do with the lack of Asuperplusses in star ratings.
I don't even bother to write reviews most of the time...

It can be difficult to judge a conversation, especially one found in a thread related to all things meta. This conversation managed to jump out at me because of it's depth, but also it's odd structure, so emblematic of the way conversation unfold on the Filmspotting Forum. One person after another adds something to the stream of consciousness and without proper context it can all come across as a jumbled blur or meaningless blather. And yet, even amidst all the attempts at poignancy, sarcasm and cleverness rest the heart and soul of it all. Four people, talking about nothing, tangentially related to film, but mostly a form of delightful verbal masturbation (and maybe other forms of masturbation nobody is privy to).

B+

As much as it tries to critique the conversation this review just can't help but fall in line with the rest of the talking. It feels like it wants to be pointing out something insightful or poignant about the lack of insightfullness or poignancy in a conversation that is utterly meaningless but instead it fails and becomes the thing which it so violently tries to rebel against. This is what happens when we stare into the void. Nothing.

C-.

And in the critique of criticism we don't merely stare into the void, we jump in, feet first, accepting to all that awaits. What we invariably find is truth, and so it is that we reach the pinnacle of all we need in this world.

Asuperplus
"We didn't clean the hamster's cage, the hamster's cage cleaned us!"

Can't get enough FroHam? Read more of my musings at justAtad

St. Martin the Bald

  • Lurker
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 11205
Re: meta
« Reply #615 on: April 25, 2011, 01:17:33 AM »
The Meta Conversation

I don't know when or why I switched to Letter Grades when rating movies. I actually don't like letter grades. In college I created perfectly workable guidelines for a 5 Star Rating System and I used that system for 15 years. So why am I stuck on Letter Grades now?
You should use my system of not rating. It's pointless.
It probably has something to do with the lack of Asuperplusses in star ratings.
I don't even bother to write reviews most of the time...

It can be difficult to judge a conversation, especially one found in a thread related to all things meta. This conversation managed to jump out at me because of it's depth, but also it's odd structure, so emblematic of the way conversation unfold on the Filmspotting Forum. One person after another adds something to the stream of consciousness and without proper context it can all come across as a jumbled blur or meaningless blather. And yet, even amidst all the attempts at poignancy, sarcasm and cleverness rest the heart and soul of it all. Four people, talking about nothing, tangentially related to film, but mostly a form of delightful verbal masturbation (and maybe other forms of masturbation nobody is privy to).

B+

As much as it tries to critique the conversation this review just can't help but fall in line with the rest of the talking. It feels like it wants to be pointing out something insightful or poignant about the lack of insightfullness or poignancy in a conversation that is utterly meaningless but instead it fails and becomes the thing which it so violently tries to rebel against. This is what happens when we stare into the void. Nothing.

C-.

And in the critique of criticism we don't merely stare into the void, we jump in, feet first, accepting to all that awaits. What we invariably find is truth, and so it is that we reach the pinnacle of all we need in this world.

Asuperplus


...
Hey, nice marmot!

Sam the Cinema Snob

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26795
Re: meta
« Reply #616 on: April 25, 2011, 08:42:42 AM »
Ratings? We don't have to show you no stinkin' ratings.

mañana

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 20862
  • Check your public library
Re: meta
« Reply #617 on: April 25, 2011, 08:47:02 AM »
I plan on soon converting to a four bones to WOOF! system.
There's no deceit in the cauliflower.

Beavermoose

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 5006
  • Samsonite! I was way off!
Re: meta
« Reply #618 on: April 25, 2011, 08:52:15 AM »
On the Canadian Film Podcast we rated out of 4 John Candys.

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: meta
« Reply #619 on: April 25, 2011, 09:16:28 AM »
MMM...John Candy.





 

love